Publication Ethics

Iranian Association of Certified Public Accountants

Ethical code of scientific publications

The scientific publications of the Iranian Association of Certified Public Accountants operate with the mission of selecting and publishing the highest quality researches in various scientific fields. In order to achieve this goal, the process of reviewing and publishing research articles must be done accurately and with an impartial approach. Gaining the trust of all stakeholders regarding justice in the process of reviewing and publishing articles contributes to the reputation and credibility of publications. Therefore, the ethical charter of the publications is designed to achieve the goal of building trust in the review and publication process. In this charter, the policies of the publications are expressed to ensure the ethical behavior of all participants involved in the said process. This charter is prepared in three sections for authors, editors and referees and they are requested to raise any questions with the editor of the publication through the article management system while reading carefully.

Ethical principles of the publication and examples of misconduct in publishing

The ethical policies of this journal are based on the principles of the International Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) and compliance with the ethics charter of the publications of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, and the publications of the Iranian Association of Certified Public Accountants adhere to them. Also, the Publications Office of the Iranian Association of Certified Public Accountants has supervised all the articles published in the publications of this university and all of them comply with the ethical principles of the International Publication Committee and the policies of the university in this regard.

Authors, reviewers, scientific secretaries and editors must observe these ethical principles when working with this publication.

The description of the principles of the International Committee on Publication Ethics is available at the following address:

The Code of Ethics for the Authors


As an author begins submitting an article, the article should be a novel and original task. The author is not allowed to submit an article whose part is being studied somewhere else. He/ she cannot submit the article whose part is being studied and assessed to another journal as well. The submitted journal either part of it or the whole in Persian or any other language is not allowed to be accepted which has been published previously or is going to be published in the future.

Authors should express their primary ideas and tasks explicitly even if they have been revised and quoted objectively. If precise sentences or paragraphs are seen in a research paper which seems it is an extract from an essay or a citation from another author, this sentence should be put in quotation marks. The essay ought to specify the origin of each applied datum and also all data. If specific data collection is applied by another author or this author, it should inform the other published or unpublished tasks.

Authors should not submit an article that has been previously submitted to this journal, assessed and finally disapproved by the editor. If the first version was disapproved and the author is willing to submit a modified version for assessment, the essay resubmission justification should be clearly explained to the author or the editor. The permission for essay resubmission for the second time is possible in a particular situation.


The article registration will inform all authors by sending an email to the site of Iranian Association of Certified Public Accountants (IACPA)journals. It is evident that inserting the author`s name in the article is considered as his / her main role in writing the essay if the essay authors have no role in writing the essay and their name has not been mentioned. It is necessary to inform the received information by email immediately. All the authors of the article are responsible for the origin of the work. All assessment rights for the plagiarism in the journal are reserved.

Plagiarism has a variety of forms:

  1. To insert the authors and researchers ` names who have no role in the article
  2. To copy or repeat the most significant part of another article ( even if the copied article is related to the author of the new essay )
  3. To show the outcome and results of the others research to his own
  4. To express false results, in contrast with scientific findings or distort the outcomes of the research
  5. Continuous publishing by a single author in some journals.
  6. To apply unreliable data or manipulate research data

Plagiarism items will be studied by the journal editors to preserve the validity and the efforts of researchers without any overlook or indulgence based on the level of plagiarism then legally pursued as follows:

  1. The journal will be disapproved and in case of publishing, it will disappear on the site
  2. The name of the authors will be inserted in the blacklist journals of the Iranian Association of Certified Public Accountants (IACPA)j.
  3. It will be prosecuted by qualified legal and judicial references
  4. By writing an official letter, the plagiarism file is shared with other related domestic and foreign journals
  5. By writing an official letter to the Ministry of Science and Information Technology, ISC, universities, institutes, journals or wherever the author has used the printing rate of this paper, they are informed of the procedure

Conflict of Interest

The author should express the resources of financial scheme in the text of paper then applies to submit it.  Each of the mentioned resources should be printed with the article. If the type of situation which shows the contrast is doubtful, it should be clarified, any item in the field of conflict of benefits should inform the editor or the publishing office. The responsible author can recommend the probable reviewer for the paper at the time of submitting the essay to the journal. Authors ought to avoid any probable contrasts or its action in selecting the editors and reviewers. This kind of conflict of benefits is not only applied for the responsible author but also includes all the authors ` colleagues in the paper.

The examples of possible Conflicts of Benefits are as follows:

  1. One of the authors in the very institution or the organization who is a reviewer or mentioned editor
  2. One of the authors, a member of the thesis committee who has been a reviewer or editor and vice versa
  3. One of the authors, editors, or reviewers who are the co-author in another article or, had been a co-author of an article in the past two years.

Authors should not introduce or name the people whom they know that they have studied the previous article and have put forward their hypothesis because this movement is contrary to the hidden assessment process of the article automatically.

Manuscripts submitted by authors from our institution or from our reviewers' board should be reviewed by referees from outside. papers submitted by reviewers and the Editorial Committee for review or revision and resubmission by the author if necessary.


Double-blind peer review

Journal follows a Double-Blind peer review in which the authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. The authors should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process and not reveal their identity to reviewers and vice versa. For instance, an article should not include any information like self-revelation in a way that the reviewer can identify the author.

Authors should not publish their submitted papers on sites (either articles or first versions) because authors can be identified easily by reviewers on websites.

Authors should not mention the people as editor or reviewer whose previous article or previous copy has been studied and suggested his recommendations because this awareness or knowledge is contrary to the Double-Blind peer review process.


Authors are finally responsible for the whole content of the submitted paper to the journal. Authors are in charge of representing a precise perspective of the done research as well as an objective debate, especially for the research's importance.

Authors should report their findings thoroughly, not to eliminate data relevant to the text or structure of research questions. Regardless of supporting the expected outcomes or being in contrast, results should be reported. Authors should present the features or relevant characteristics of their research, their findings and their interpretation precisely. Fundamental suggestions, theories, methods, indexed and research schemes relevant to findings and their interpretations should be revealed and subjected.

The article should contain ample details and resources in a way that researchers access the same data collection to repeat the research.

If an author discovers a mistake or an important carelessness, he/she is responsible for informing the editor and the procedure immediately to cooperate with the article modification or revision. If the author or publication, by a third person or party, understands that the published paper is suffering from a monumental error, the author is responsible for applying the article modification or revision as well as providing the evidence for the editor based on the precision and correction of the main article.


All the mentioned authors should work seriously on the research paper to be responsible for the results. The authorship or compilation should be shared in proportion with different supporting.

 Authors should accept the responsibility and validity of the task which include the authorship validity or compilation, only for the task which they have done practically or they have helped. Authors should typically list the name of the student as the main coauthor in the paper with multiple authors who have adapted from the student`s thesis or dissertation.

The responsible author who submits the paper to the journal should send one sheet or one version of an article to all shared coauthors to satisfy them by paper submission and publishing.

Citation manipulation

Excessive citations in a submitted manuscript that do not contribute to the scientific content of the paper and are included solely to increase citations to an author's work or articles published in a special journal is called citation manipulation. This is a form of scientific misconduct because it misrepresents the importance of the work and the particular publication in which it appears.

Human rights

Authors are in charge of preserving and supporting privacy, human munificence, human freedom and welfare as well as research participants. The papers that are involved in human affairs (field studies, simulations, interviews), should be done in accordance with human rights regulation necessities in the university author.

Being up to date             

Authors should act quickly and appropriately to revise and modify the articles. If an author cannot act before the deadline (maximum one month), should contact the editor for an extension or refusal from the assessment process at once.

Copyright and License 

All manuscripts submitted to the professional auditing research are published under a Creative Commons License. Therefore, the copyright of articles accepted for this journal rests with the author(s). All authors will be presented with the option to make articles available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0). The copyright of papers published in the professional auditing research, as an Open Access journal under the CC BY license, is retained by the author(s). The Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) 

Code of Ethics for Editors


Editors should preserve their pen and paper independence to work and make sure that authors are free to write. The editors are responsible for accepting or refusing the articles which typically depend on the ideas and recommendations of reviewers, by the way, the articles that are inappropriate from the point of view of editors are probably refused without reviewers` assessment.

No biases

Editors should improve their position score and circumstances confidentially, and constructively unbiased. Editors carry the essay review duty only based on scientific merits. Editors should act unbiased, without personal or ideological advocacy.

Conflict of Benefits

Editors should avoid any action that increases conflicts of benefits with its unreasonable aspect. For instance:

To avoid potential conflict of benefits, the editor is not allowed to publish an article that is not clearly identified, reviewed, or partly reviewed. Liability, writing authority and editing each article by the editor, submitted to the journal, should be submitted by the editor to another qualified person like the previous editor or one of the members of the board of editorial. To apply written considerations in an article by the author or editor in any form is not acceptable.

Editors should avoid any paper study that is in contrast with their real or potential conflict of benefits. The contrast is due to the competitive, partnership, financial, or other relations with any other companies, organizations, or institutes related to the article. The examples related to the relations which show conflicts of benefits of the editor or author are:

  1. Both the author and editor have been employed by one institute
  2. Editor has been one member of the thesis committee of the author or vice versa
  3. The editor and the author are currently coworkers and coauthors in another article or have been coauthors in an article in past two years.

Double-Blind peer review

The publication follows a Double-Blind peer review in which authors do not know the reviewers and vice versa. The articles of the magazine seem not to be assessed mutually and stealthily. Assessment standards should be expressed crystal clear.


Editors and their board of editorials are not allowed to reveal relevant information about the article to anyone but reviewers and authors. Official and formal procedures should be determined to preserve the confidentiality of the assessment process.

Editors are expected to make sure the confidentiality of Double-Blind peer review process and lack of information revelation which may reveal the authors` identity to reviewers and vice versa. Reviewers` anonymity can be breached only when reviewers permit editors to reveal their identity.

Editors should make sure that their board of editorials is compatible and coordinated with them. Some parts of a submitted article which has not been published, are not allowed to be used in a personal research of an editor without the author`s written permission. Confidential ideas or information which has been obtained by article assessment should be preserved privately not to be used for private benefits.

Assessment quality

Typically, two reviewers are invited to express their ideas about an article. The editor should evaluate all assessments qualitatively. Editor may rarely edit an assessed article before submitting it to the author (for example, for eliminating an expression that reveals the reviewer`s identity or does not send the assessed article in case it is not constructive or appropriate. Rankings and scores of assessment quality as well as other functional features assessed periodically by the editor to make sure of optimized operation of the journal.

These scores and rankings should help decision makings in the field of reappointment of reviewing teams and continuous requests. Individual operation data should be accessible for editors and kept confidential.

Being up to date             

To guarantee the article's assessment and quick response to the authors ` requests about assessment status by a determined deadline (maximum one week after receiving the article) editors should apply primary assessment and reviewer selection.

 Quality of decision

Editors are responsible for describing the decisions of the board of editorials for authors and their articles. Editors should write high quality letters where these letters represent the combination of the reviewers` recommendations and extra suggestions for another author. Editors should not attach the result of the decision in the letter format without an explanation to the advice and suggestions of the reviewer.


As the editor receives convincing evidence from the reviewer based on a false concept or results of an unpublished article, should inform procedure to the author. If similar evidence about an article were published, the editor should apply an emergency modified publishing, return the previous one, and express relevant matters with other notes appropriately.


The editor is responsible for the final authority and responsibility of the journal. They should respect journal formation (such as readers, authors, reviewers, editors, and staff of the board of editorial) and try his / her best for the truthful and honest content of the journal as well as continuous improvement. Editor should select members of the board of editorial based on the written assessment board, determine their responsibilities and evaluate their actions regularly.


The editor should design the operation index of the journal. The journal is going to be published based on annual auditing related to admission level, publishing intervals, submitted articles percentage for revision and foreign revision as well as the operation data.

Operation indexes ought to improve the journal operation for assessing the revolution of articles along with publishing processes.

Complaints and reviews

Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart.

Editors should be quick to respond to complaints and should ensure that there is a way for disgruntled complainers to pursue complaints.

Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Reciprocal communication

Evaluation and studying are professional activities for journals which have valued the whole profession to be encouraged. It is usually expected that the researchers who submit their articles in a journal accept the journal invitation for their article assessment.

Right to refuse and rejection

Abstaining or rejecting an article assessment based on time or status is essential. For example, a reviewer who is not qualified enough to review a research paper should abstain from assessing the article. Due to potential conflicts of benefits, reviewers should abstain from their assessment. If the reviewers are asked to assess an article that has been previously assessed, they should inform the editor of primary evaluation details unless they are asked to reassess.

Double-Blind peer review

Publication has a process of a Double-Blind peer review. Reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they have previously provided written suggestions in first version. If a reviewer is aware of the author`s identity or coauthor`s identity, is involved naturally in assessing the article. Reviewers are also responsible for avoiding writing, telling and doing whatever reveals their identity for the author.

Conflict of Interest

Generally, reviewers should abstain from assessing the articles which they think they are involved in conflicts of benefits such as shared financial, organizational and personal benefits or any connections with other companies, institutes, or related individuals with the essay, the reviewers who may have conflicts of benefits in the field of a special article. This conflict should be clarified for the editor to determine the appropriate level of assessment. For instance, there is a situation where the reviewer is editing and evaluating a similar article in that journal or another along with a similar research paper, keep in mind that under the process of Double-Blind peer review, as reviewers do not know the authors, it is unlikely that reviewers are aware of the involved conflicts of benefits among authors. Thus, they are not limited by these conflicts. If reviewers become aware of such conflicts, they should inform the editor of the journal.  

 No biases

Reviewers should assess articles objectively, fairly and professionally. They are recommended to avoid any personal bias in their reviews.


Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the assessment process. It is important to recognize whether this article is confidential or not. Reviewers should not discuss with anyone except the editor about the article and they are not allowed to transfer the essay information to someone else. If reviewers are suspected to a wrong deed should inform the editor confidentially, and not express their worries to other departments till the official announcement.


To assess the article and make recommendations to the author (authors), reviewers should always know that assessment influences practical review. Reviewers should be honest with authors about their relevant article worries.

Reviewers ought to define and support their scientific review sufficiently and, it means they should provide details and ample information for the editor to justify their advice to the author. Reviewers cannot be bipolar, for instance, on the one hand, very friendly and intimate assessments facing with the author, and on the other hand, very bitter assessments in person discussions with the editor.  


Reviewers should act quickly in their assessing and reviewing. If a reviewer cannot review his task in a determined deadline (maximum one month) he/she ought to connect with editor for extending the reviewing time or new reviewer selection.